Whatifsports.com - Forums: Who is this clown?

6/15/2011 7:07 AM (edited)

rmancil

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 491 (0)

NFL - 2 GD - 121 HBD - 7

Look a scholarship to Duke is worth a lot more than one to Ohio State but the Buckeyes have the big time football program why is that?? Let me tell you its the money, it isn't the education most of the players can not take advantage of the educational opportunity. Most are hoping for the big N.F.L. contract that 99.9 % will never see.L.S.U.,Oklahoma,U.S.C. are all fine schools but they will never be mistaken for Stanford or Harvard.

These huge football programs are the minor leagues for the N.F.L. now. No other sport has any better minor league system in place not even close.The money continues to expand at a incredible pace but it seems that a lot of you think that as long as they spend it all or the vast majority of it on other sports,facilities and administration cost room and board along with the bachelors degree in phys ed is plenty for the talent.

That my friends is why the rich always get richer while the rest of the world does all the work.

Take a look at what the coaches make, food /concessions contracts,janitorial supplies, check into who has the beer distributorship that has the exclusive vendor contract and check out his house.Then tell me who has the best deal the average player who will walk with difficulty when he is 50 and die a early death while coaching high school football or working as a laborer or one of the exclusive vendors. Who knows Johnny Running back might be driving a truck for him take a moment and ask him who has the best deal.

Any entertainment that will generate over 1 billion of reported profits is out of this world big business.

6/15/2011 12:37 PM

jhard70

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 251 (1)

GD - 100

rmancil, the universities didn't create the "minor league" system for the NFL and the reality is that a minimal number of student-athletes actually go on to play pro football. Schools like Duke and Harvard have plenty of money to spread around. They are able to demand a significant cost of attendance for the trade-off for a great job opportunities in a desired field. I would guess they also spend a large amount of their money on building educational programs as well as facilities, administration, room, and board, and many other things which is no different than high-profile athletic programs. Additionally, the notion that most student-athletes are pursuing phys ed degrees for the talent is ridiculous, ignorant, and a slam at a viable degree option for any student with an interest in the field. The rich always get richer because we live in a society of supply and demand. If there was no demand for college football /sports then there would be no money to be made.

Just curious, how is a scholarship to Duke worth more than one to Ohio State? If a student has a goal of becoming an elementary school teacher in North Dakota, does it really matter if they have a Duke or Ohio State education?

6/15/2011 1:01 PM

slid64er

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Rookie

Posts: 824 (0)

MLB - 34 GD - 144 HBD - 4

Here you go rmancil, fixed your post for you:

These huge universities are the minor leagues for the rich. No other income bracket has a better minor league system in place, not even close. The money continues to expand at an incredible pace but it seems that a lot of you think that as long as they spend it all or the vast majority of it on other departments, capital improvements, administrative costs it is enough.

That my friends is why the rich always get richer while the rest of the world does all the work.

Take a look at what professors make, nobel prizes, pulitzer prizes, check into who has the government research grants that have exclusive contracts and check out his house. Then tell me who has the best deal the average student who will work through his 50's or the company the professor hires to a non-bid contract to further his research? Who knows, Johnny Bachelor Degree might be a graduate assistant to the professor, ask him who has the best deal.

Any institution that will generate TRILLIONS of reported profits is out of this world big business.

So, according to your argument, higher learning should consist of Business, Economics and a few select hard sciences. Students in these degree programs should be paid to attend school, especially those in Business. The expected lifetime earnings of a Biology degree graduates is far higher than the expected lifetime earnings of football players, even when you factor in NFL players. The grants that Biology programs generate are several multiples of that generated by the football program By your argument, Biology majors should be paid several multiples of what a football players should be paid on the off chance that one of them founds a multibillion dollar biotech company.

Since most departments don't cover their own costs in grants and research monies so they should be dropped since revenue should not be shared between departments. No more psychology, sociology, literature, anthropology or any other department that doesn't make money. If you take it a step further, every public university (i.e. the entire University of California system, University of Virginia, etc.) should be shut down because they all lose money.

You still don't realize that college football is part of a greater whole of the athletic department which is, in turn, a small cog in an institution of higher learning. Football is a small, small part of a university's mandate. Your only argument is that football makes money so players should get paid and every other part of the athletic department should suck wind because it loses money. It's incredibly myopic.

6/15/2011 1:18 PM

cydrych

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 1212 (0)

GD - 122 FCD - 11

Rmancil believes in the inherent entitlement of the players. Rmancil believes in the exploitation/slavery of the players. Rmancil believes that if someone is getting paid, that money should be passed around to anyone or everyone that makes that payment possible. All your other arguments are deflections, deceptions, and diversions to these main truths.

6/15/2011 4:13 PM

rmancil

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 491 (0)

NFL - 2 GD - 121 HBD - 7

Pretty simple folks if any entertainer is responsible for filling 80k seats every Saturday and muti million on the tube I think they are entitled to some compensation above room /board and education and I think they should have some continuing revenue for future use of their image in replays or video games. This is not the game it was when Alonzo Stagg was making a name for himself.

6/15/2011 5:44 PM

potter444

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 463 (0)

GD - 135

Posted by slid64er on 6/15/2011 1:01:00 PM (view original):
Here you go rmancil, fixed your post for you:

These huge universities are the minor leagues for the rich. No other income bracket has a better minor league system in place, not even close. The money continues to expand at an incredible pace but it seems that a lot of you think that as long as they spend it all or the vast majority of it on other departments, capital improvements, administrative costs it is enough.

That my friends is why the rich always get richer while the rest of the world does all the work.

Take a look at what professors make, nobel prizes, pulitzer prizes, check into who has the government research grants that have exclusive contracts and check out his house. Then tell me who has the best deal the average student who will work through his 50's or the company the professor hires to a non-bid contract to further his research? Who knows, Johnny Bachelor Degree might be a graduate assistant to the professor, ask him who has the best deal.

Any institution that will generate TRILLIONS of reported profits is out of this world big business.

So, according to your argument, higher learning should consist of Business, Economics and a few select hard sciences. Students in these degree programs should be paid to attend school, especially those in Business. The expected lifetime earnings of a Biology degree graduates is far higher than the expected lifetime earnings of football players, even when you factor in NFL players. The grants that Biology programs generate are several multiples of that generated by the football program By your argument, Biology majors should be paid several multiples of what a football players should be paid on the off chance that one of them founds a multibillion dollar biotech company.

Since most departments don't cover their own costs in grants and research monies so they should be dropped since revenue should not be shared between departments. No more psychology, sociology, literature, anthropology or any other department that doesn't make money. If you take it a step further, every public university (i.e. the entire University of California system, University of Virginia, etc.) should be shut down because they all lose money.

You still don't realize that college football is part of a greater whole of the athletic department which is, in turn, a small cog in an institution of higher learning. Football is a small, small part of a university's mandate. Your only argument is that football makes money so players should get paid and every other part of the athletic department should suck wind because it loses money. It's incredibly myopic.

So let me get this straight. It's all about "amateur" athletics ("The NCAA has been doing this for over a century and has always been about amateur athletics.")  But now "amateur" football and basketball generate big revenue. ("The money has changed, but it's always been about amateur intercollegiate athletics.")  The coaches can make millions directly, and indirectly, from "amateur" athletics. The ADs and administration can profit from "amateur" athletics. And the schools can take profits from particular "amateur" athletics and fund other departments/programs at the school that, apparently, could not be sustained without the profit from "amateur" athletics. But a collegiate athlete cannot make $50.00 by selling his autograph. Because he is an "amateur"....because he doesn't receive compensation...for his partcipation in a sport that everyone else profits...and he ~~works~~ engages in a sh$t load of hours for that sport.

The argument that a collegiate athlete shouldn't receive any form of compensation other than the standard (scholie, room and board) ignores the obvious fact that it does occur---and often. It may not work but even made up GD acknowledges booster gifts. If the standard compensation is sufficient, why do schools/boosters give $100 handshakes to recruits? Why was OJ Mayo allegedly paid cash? Why do schools like Oregon  pay outside recruiting services and where do you think that cash ends up? And if the high profile sports aren't a big revenue source, why are the lists of top-paid employees of nearly every state football coaches, basketball coaches and ADs?

Just get rid of the hypocrisy. Stop with the athletes are "greedy" but the ADs, coaches, administration, networks, and old men in bad blazers from the Fiesta Bowl are not.  Stop with the administration and coaches at [INSERT NAME OF SEC SCHOOL OTHER THAN VANDERBILT HERE] are genuinely concerned about the academic mission of its players.  Stop with the "its all about education and the experience" but ignoring that NCAA BB schools have no qualms that there star players are one-and-done (side note --- the fact there is a Carmelo K. Anthony Center at SU always makes me shake my head. How many months was the guy a "student" at SU? I guess just another side benefit for schools.)

What would be the harm if Jimmer Fredette did an ~~ad for Skoal~~ "Got Milk?" ad? What would be the harm if an athlete could, and did, openly hire a agency to represent him and pay him during college? That's right, the sky would fall, colleges would close and the idylic 1950s view of the student-athlete would evaporate.

6/15/2011 6:37 PM

jhunterz

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 115 (0)

HD - 1 GD - 42 CRD - 3

The easiest way I can put it is like this.... Most of us work for a company, for which we are paid X amount of dollars. Now the company charges 3X amount of dollars for my work therefore they are making money off of me to cover my wages and other things such as utilities, insurance, etc..... Now of course I am the one making them the money, and would like a bigger chunk of it, but that's not the way it works! College athletics can be looked at the same way since rmancil keeps saying that this is a business. Student athletes are the peons that make the money for the bosses, they are paid an amount that they agreed upon ( scholarship, room, board, tuition, books, tutors....) just like we workers agree to work for a certain wage in which we make money for our bosses! Do I want a raise? Hell yeah!! Do the student athletes want to get paid? Hell yeah!! Will either happen anytime soon? Hell NO!!!! The student athlete has a little more glimmer of hope because they can either go pro or the possibility of getting a degree for free!

6/15/2011 7:22 PM

cydrych

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 1212 (0)

GD - 122 FCD - 11

They aren't entitled to getting paid! If they were truly entitled, they could go on strike... refuse to play until the rules are changed. They won't do that because they can't.

I don't think it is about hypocrisy. I think it is just a deliberate resistance to change. College athletics used to be like high school athletics. You go to school, you play the sport(s) that you love, and maybe you can set yourself up for the next level. High school players aren't entitled to a share of the gate receipts. High school players don't get endorsements. High school players aren't allowed to accept booster gifts. What is the serious harm in colleges that want to maintain that same "purity" of the student-athlete concept? Sure it helps the administration -- some of them make big bucks, but it also vastly helps the schools (both on campus and in public visibility). The only difference between high school and college athletics is (or should be) the number of digits on the checks that support the athletic departments. That, in itself, is no reason to change the rules.

Don't get me wrong. I don't mind if they change the rules. I personally don't care if a guy sells a ring for some cash or tattoos. I wouldn't have a problem if a company was allowed and chose to endorse a college player. Let them hash out an arrangement and sign a contract. I just do not see that players are entitled to any of the proceeds that the athletic departments make while they play their sport for their school. And if you are going to start paying students to play, then I think you should pay them all (you are arguing about fairness, right?), not just the football and basketball players. Soccer, tennis, and hockey players have the same wants and needs as football players. Gymnasts and swimmers engage in the same sh$tload of hours for their sport as well. If you are going to treat some of them "right", you need to treat them all "right".

I read somewhere that 50 or so university presidents are going to get together with the NCAA in the next couple months. Maybe you'll inspire them to change. But for 99% of the student-athletes out there, it is a privilege to play their sport for their school. I doubt they are going to see a good reason to change the entire structure of college sports for the other 1%.

6/15/2011 7:23 PM

cydrych

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 1212 (0)

GD - 122 FCD - 11

Posted by jhunterz on 6/15/2011 6:37:00 PM (view original):
The easiest way I can put it is like this.... Most of us work for a company, for which we are paid X amount of dollars. Now the company charges 3X amount of dollars for my work therefore they are making money off of me to cover my wages and other things such as utilities, insurance, etc..... Now of course I am the one making them the money, and would like a bigger chunk of it, but that's not the way it works! College athletics can be looked at the same way since rmancil keeps saying that this is a business. Student athletes are the peons that make the money for the bosses, they are paid an amount that they agreed upon ( scholarship, room, board, tuition, books, tutors....) just like we workers agree to work for a certain wage in which we make money for our bosses! Do I want a raise? Hell yeah!! Do the student athletes want to get paid? Hell yeah!! Will either happen anytime soon? Hell NO!!!! The student athlete has a little more glimmer of hope because they can either go pro or the possibility of getting a degree for free!

6/15/2011 7:59 PM

potter444

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 463 (0)

GD - 135

Posted by jhunterz on 6/15/2011 6:37:00 PM (view original):
The easiest way I can put it is like this.... Most of us work for a company, for which we are paid X amount of dollars. Now the company charges 3X amount of dollars for my work therefore they are making money off of me to cover my wages and other things such as utilities, insurance, etc..... Now of course I am the one making them the money, and would like a bigger chunk of it, but that's not the way it works! College athletics can be looked at the same way since rmancil keeps saying that this is a business. Student athletes are the peons that make the money for the bosses, they are paid an amount that they agreed upon ( scholarship, room, board, tuition, books, tutors....) just like we workers agree to work for a certain wage in which we make money for our bosses! Do I want a raise? Hell yeah!! Do the student athletes want to get paid? Hell yeah!! Will either happen anytime soon? Hell NO!!!! The student athlete has a little more glimmer of hope because they can either go pro or the possibility of getting a degree for free!

The analogy is dead on if: (1) the company is part of a monopoly; (2) the workers all have an extremely unique and valuable skill set that is the core reason the company profits; (3) the workers can't negotiate their compensation before they start; (4) a signficant part of the compensation is a benefit, say vacation, but the company works the employees so hard and long that they don't have time to use it; and (5) the company is secretly paying some employees under the table to avoid some rules (e.g., taxes, workers compensation, disability payments).

6/15/2011 8:55 PM (edited)

slid64er

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Rookie

Posts: 824 (0)

MLB - 34 GD - 144 HBD - 4

Posted by potter444 on 6/15/2011 7:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jhunterz on 6/15/2011 6:37:00 PM (view original):
The easiest way I can put it is like this.... Most of us work for a company, for which we are paid X amount of dollars. Now the company charges 3X amount of dollars for my work therefore they are making money off of me to cover my wages and other things such as utilities, insurance, etc..... Now of course I am the one making them the money, and would like a bigger chunk of it, but that's not the way it works! College athletics can be looked at the same way since rmancil keeps saying that this is a business. Student athletes are the peons that make the money for the bosses, they are paid an amount that they agreed upon ( scholarship, room, board, tuition, books, tutors....) just like we workers agree to work for a certain wage in which we make money for our bosses! Do I want a raise? Hell yeah!! Do the student athletes want to get paid? Hell yeah!! Will either happen anytime soon? Hell NO!!!! The student athlete has a little more glimmer of hope because they can either go pro or the possibility of getting a degree for free!
The analogy is dead on if: (1) the company is part of a monopoly; (2) the workers all have an extremely unique and valuable skill set that is the core reason the company profits; (3) the workers can't negotiate their compensation before they start; (4) a signficant part of the compensation is a benefit, say vacation, but the company works the employees so hard and long that they don't have time to use it; and (5) the company is secretly paying some employees under the table to avoid some rules (e.g., taxes, workers compensation, disability payments).

(1) NCAA football is not a monopoly. There are no barriers to entry to start a professional league for college age kids. If there is demand enough for paying players more than they are receiving from their scholarship, I'm sure there would be entrepreneurs who would try it. The fact is you can't make a value proposition above what a college education is worth to enough players to form a league.
(2) College football players are not the core reason that football programs profit. Ticket receipts, broadcast rights, school logo apparel, etc. is what drives profit. Many of us still buy season tickets and support our team regardless of who is on the field. And yes, my school has been terrible at times so I know what a crappy product can be put on the field. College players are also free to leave anytime they want with their "unique and valuable" skills and try their hand at the free market. Their skills are only valuable in the context of college football, provided by the school. If you doubt that, see what their "unique and valuable skills" are worth on the free market with a high school degree. I doubt you will find a job that will cover college tuition, rent, meals, health insurance, private tutoring and a monthly stipend (the present day value of an athletic scholarship, does not even include the value of a degree) with that resume.
(3) Athletes do negotiate their compensation. Just because it's standardized in the form of a scholarship doesn't change the fact that the athlete can walk away from it. They don't have to play football for the school, they can just as easily go find a job with a high school diploma.
(4) What benefits for college athletes are you talking about? I never received them and I don't know anyone who did.
(5) Again, I don't know what you're talking about here. Are you implying that athletic departments are paying employees under the table? I seriously doubt that. There are serious financial audits just to comply with federal guidelines. I doubt any athletic department is stupid enough to jeopardize the school's federal funding which is several multiples more than the athletic budgets.

6/15/2011 9:13 PM

potter444

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 463 (0)

GD - 135

Posted by cydrych on 6/15/2011 7:22:00 PM (view original):
They aren't entitled to getting paid! If they were truly entitled, they could go on strike... refuse to play until the rules are changed. They won't do that because they can't.

I don't think it is about hypocrisy. I think it is just a deliberate resistance to change. College athletics used to be like high school athletics. You go to school, you play the sport(s) that you love, and maybe you can set yourself up for the next level. High school players aren't entitled to a share of the gate receipts. High school players don't get endorsements. High school players aren't allowed to accept booster gifts. What is the serious harm in colleges that want to maintain that same "purity" of the student-athlete concept? Sure it helps the administration -- some of them make big bucks, but it also vastly helps the schools (both on campus and in public visibility). The only difference between high school and college athletics is (or should be) the number of digits on the checks that support the athletic departments. That, in itself, is no reason to change the rules.

Don't get me wrong. I don't mind if they change the rules. I personally don't care if a guy sells a ring for some cash or tattoos. I wouldn't have a problem if a company was allowed and chose to endorse a college player. Let them hash out an arrangement and sign a contract. I just do not see that players are entitled to any of the proceeds that the athletic departments make while they play their sport for their school. And if you are going to start paying students to play, then I think you should pay them all (you are arguing about fairness, right?), not just the football and basketball players. Soccer, tennis, and hockey players have the same wants and needs as football players. Gymnasts and swimmers engage in the same sh$tload of hours for their sport as well. If you are going to treat some of them "right", you need to treat them all "right".

I read somewhere that 50 or so university presidents are going to get together with the NCAA in the next couple months. Maybe you'll inspire them to change. But for 99% of the student-athletes out there, it is a privilege to play their sport for their school. I doubt they are going to see a good reason to change the entire structure of college sports for the other 1%.

Fairness is part of it.  But fairness doesn't mean paying student athletes simply for time and effort. In a non-income (or a money losing sport), I think the traditional compensation package (scholie, room, board) is probably a good (or more than a good) deal for field hockey player. If you're a five-star WR going to a BCS school, highly unlikely. And if it was sufficient, schools and boosters wouldn't need to go to the lengths they do to lure in talent. Going with the business analogy that people like to use, workers with different skill sets and performing different tasks do not get paid the same.  Especially when the company funds its entire business primarily on the talent and work of a small group.

Another part is opportunity to profit from their skill set. Hockey, tennis, golf, soccer (mostly overseas) and to some extent baseball, an incredibly talented kid can make money in his sport without college. Basketball is different with the NBA age restriction even with lesser pro opportunities overseas. Football is unique animal. A talented kid cannot enter the NFL draft without the NCAA route. The CFL just isn't a option. And despite people saying all high school kids aren't ready, my guess is that some NFL teams would sign projects and wait.

But a big part is hypocrisy. Rather than just saying it's a great business model for schools and the labor is cheap, they trot out disingenuous arguments.  You mentioned one, "What is the serious harm in colleges that want to maintain that same "purity" of the student-athlete concept?" The "purity" of Cam Newton landing at Auburn. The "purity" of OJ Mayo at USC. The "purity" of SMU, Miami, etc., etc..  And give me a break about the student athlete.

Let kids do ads, get sponsors, sign an autograph, hire agents, etc. And if a BCS football player gets paid, and not just the same package as a female cross-country runner, the whole system doesn't come crashing down. Get everything out in the open.

6/15/2011 9:49 PM

potter444

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 463 (0)

GD - 135

(1) NCAA football is not a monopoly. There are no barriers to entry to start a professional league for college age kids. If there is demand enough for paying players more than they are receiving from their scholarship, I'm sure there would be entrepreneurs who would try it. The fact is you can't make a value proposition above what a college education is worth to enough players to form a league.
The NCAA is the NFL's farm system and a kid cannot go "pro" from high school. CFL ain't pro football.

(2) College football players are not the core reason that football programs profit. Ticket receipts, broadcast rights, school logo apparel, etc. is what drives profit. Many of us still buy season tickets and support our team regardless of who is on the field. And yes, my school has been terrible at times so I know what a crappy product can be put on the field. College players are also free to leave anytime they want with their "unique and valuable" skills and try their hand at the free market. Their skills are only valuable in the context of college football, provided by the school. If you doubt that, see what their "unique and valuable skills" are worth on the free market with a high school degree. I doubt you will find a job that will cover college tuition, rent, meals, health insurance, private tutoring and a monthly stipend (the present day value of an athletic scholarship, does not even include the value of a degree) with that resume.
Yeah I guess they can sell tickets and broadcast a game with no players and the loyal alumni would still watch. I guess the Foot Locker in Idaho has North Carolina and Alabama gear for sale in case alumni are passing through and not because of the success of sport programs. Kobe, Garnett, Dwight Howard and LeBron (well maybe not LeBron) did pretty well with their high school degree and valueless skill set before the one-year rule.

(3) Athletes do negotiate their compensation. Just because it's standardized in the form of a scholarship doesn't change the fact that the athlete can walk away from it. They don't have to play football for the school, they can just as easily go find a job with a high school diploma.
That's take it or leave it. That's not negotiation. If one school could offer money, and more money than another school, you would have a free market. And high schoolers are not permitted to go directly to the NBA or NFL.

(4) What benefits for college athletes are you talking about? I never received them and I don't know anyone who did.
College baseball, right? Enough said. And we all know that there are no benefits given to basketball and football players http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=ys-floyd051209, http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6272478, http://www.statefansnation.com/index.php/archives/2010/07/15/feb-10-black-santa-accused-of-paying-recruits-in-chapel-hill/, http://articles.latimes.com/1985-09-25/sports/sp-19931_1_illegal-recruitment, http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/magazine/10/12/agent/index.html

(5) Again, I don't know what you're talking about here. Are you implying that athletic departments are paying employees under the table? I seriously doubt that. There are serious financial audits just to comply with federal guidelines. I doubt any athletic department is stupid enough to jeopardize the school's federal funding which is several multiples more than the athletic budgets.

6/15/2011 10:30 PM (edited)

slid64er

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Rookie

Posts: 824 (0)

MLB - 34 GD - 144 HBD - 4

Posted by potter444 on 6/15/2011 9:49:00 PM (view original):
(1) NCAA football is not a monopoly. There are no barriers to entry to start a professional league for college age kids. If there is demand enough for paying players more than they are receiving from their scholarship, I'm sure there would be entrepreneurs who would try it. The fact is you can't make a value proposition above what a college education is worth to enough players to form a league.
The NCAA is the NFL's farm system and a kid cannot go "pro" from high school. CFL ain't pro football.

(2) College football players are not the core reason that football programs profit. Ticket receipts, broadcast rights, school logo apparel, etc. is what drives profit. Many of us still buy season tickets and support our team regardless of who is on the field. And yes, my school has been terrible at times so I know what a crappy product can be put on the field. College players are also free to leave anytime they want with their "unique and valuable" skills and try their hand at the free market. Their skills are only valuable in the context of college football, provided by the school. If you doubt that, see what their "unique and valuable skills" are worth on the free market with a high school degree. I doubt you will find a job that will cover college tuition, rent, meals, health insurance, private tutoring and a monthly stipend (the present day value of an athletic scholarship, does not even include the value of a degree) with that resume.
Yeah I guess they can sell tickets and broadcast a game with no players and the loyal alumni would still watch. I guess the Foot Locker in Idaho has North Carolina and Alabama gear for sale in case alumni are passing through and not because of the success of sport programs. Kobe, Garnett, Dwight Howard and LeBron (well maybe not LeBron) did pretty well with their high school degree and valueless skill set before the one-year rule.

(3) Athletes do negotiate their compensation. Just because it's standardized in the form of a scholarship doesn't change the fact that the athlete can walk away from it. They don't have to play football for the school, they can just as easily go find a job with a high school diploma.
That's take it or leave it. That's not negotiation. If one school could offer money, and more money than another school, you would have a free market. And high schoolers are not permitted to go directly to the NBA or NFL.

(4) What benefits for college athletes are you talking about? I never received them and I don't know anyone who did.
College baseball, right? Enough said. And we all know that there are no benefits given to basketball and football players http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=ys-floyd051209, http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6272478, http://www.statefansnation.com/index.php/archives/2010/07/15/feb-10-black-santa-accused-of-paying-recruits-in-chapel-hill/, http://articles.latimes.com/1985-09-25/sports/sp-19931_1_illegal-recruitment, http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/magazine/10/12/agent/index.html

(5) Again, I don't know what you're talking about here. Are you implying that athletic departments are paying employees under the table? I seriously doubt that. There are serious financial audits just to comply with federal guidelines. I doubt any athletic department is stupid enough to jeopardize the school's federal funding which is several multiples more than the athletic budgets.

(1) The NCAA is not a farm system so it doesn't operate like the MLB and NHL farm system. It has no obligation to operate as minor league NFL where the only goal is to provide players for the next level. There are bigger mandates for schools than that. The NFL doesn't want to foot the bill for a minor league system, so thats on them. If you want to pay players, get the NFL or some other group to set up a farm system and you can. If it's such a great idea to pay college aged players, why hasn't this happened yet? Oh right, you can't make the finances work and it would be a cash sinkhole for investors.
(2) Yes, Foot Locker carries apparel because teams are successful. What does that have to do with paying players? You can only be successful by paying the Newtons and Pryors of the world? Sales of Harvard apparel all over New England is pretty strong, they even sell stuff at Foot Locker. I have no idea if their sports programs are successful or not. What does that prove?
That's great that those guy got paid playing professional sports without a university degree. The problem with football is that they don't have a minor league system or the ability to draft players out of high school. Again, that's on the NFL, not the NCAA.
(3) I've been party to several multi million dollar negotiations that are "take it or leave it" in the business world. You can't squeeze blood from a stone. If you find you can't compromise any more without undermining your own position, you move on. Just as the recruit can do.
(4) So by benefits, you mean illegal benefits. Schools who get caught get sanctioned, though not nearly hard enough IMO.
(5) I still don't understand what you're talking about here.

6/16/2011 12:23 AM (edited)

cydrych

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 1212 (0)

GD - 122 FCD - 11

So... it is only because football and basketball programs make tons of money that they are obligated to share their revenue with their players. It is only because some set of university employees (ADs, coaches, presidents, etc) are getting very rich that the normal scholarship arrangement for these players is unfair. Its not about fairness amongst the athletes. The programs that do not make enough money are not obligated to share their revenue, right?

Where does the line of entitlement get drawn? Is it every football program? Just the profitable ones? Is it the ones who pay their coach at least a million dollars? Is it the programs that have enough profit to re-invest into school infrastructures? Is it the ones that have had a player drafted in the NFL within the past 5 years? How much should the kids get paid? You think it should be from state sources or are you going to let the alumni decide how much financial power the university can wield? I assume you are endorsing the players as being employees of the college and dropping the illusion of the student-athlete. Are they allowed to attend classes at all? Won't they need some sort of player's union? How would a player's union even work if the players are only committed to the union for 2-4 years and then they are gone?

Face it: paying the players won't work. Your examples of Cam Newton, OJ Mayo, SMU are all excellent examples of schools and alumni cheating. That doesn't mean that the student-athlete concept can't/doesn't work, that it isn't fair. If these kids were really worth the big money that the schools make, the NFL (or someone with deep pockets) would set up a farm league to get those players in, get them paid, and start profiting from their unique talents. But they aren't worth all that, are they? Not really. It is the college branding that makes college football the big sell that it is. Its not Cam Newton that made Auburn profitable, its the Auburn alumni. Its not the lousy Texas team that they fielded that made them profitable, its the die-hard Longhorn fans that made them profitable. Yeah, the kids think its them, even some adults! Sure they think they are entitled to at least part of the profits. But its not... its all about the universities. The NFL knows it. The NCAA knows it. And now, you know it.

So jump on a different bandwagon. Relax some of the amateur status rules... let the kids sell their crap, let them sign endorsement deals, don't worry about what they drive. I'm fine with all that. But please don't keep beating the drum about how they need to be paid. They signed up as student-athletes, are treated like rock stars, but have no claim to any part of the school's revenue stream.